thaiflyer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:55 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 1:12 am

twinotter wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Thats about all we can really do I think.


No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.


Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.
I only travel with hand luggage for my work and as i have to many valuables in my hand carry, checking in is not a option.
I agree that locking the bins could be a option and technical it is not a problem.
But i'm afraid this will never happen as it cost to much and increases the weight of the plane.
People are not willing to pay for it.
Even i'm a seasoned traveler nobody knows how somebody would react in a emergency.
Even not the the so called die hards here on the forum
Until you have first hand experience you just don't know it.
 
TMccrury
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:24 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 1:27 am

First of all prayers for the survivors and the families of the decades in this tragedy. What an absolute horrific thing to go through. I spoke to my brother, who has watched some of the video's and is a fire fighter with more certifications than I care to remember. I had thought to myself, the heat from that fire had to be horrendous. In a conversation with him, I asked him what he estimated the temp to be. He said, "with it being fuel fed, somewhere around 2000 degrees F or higher". With that in mind, not knowing what damage may have occurred inside the plane during the crash, it is possible those poor folks in the rear of the plane never had a chance regardless of what folks to the front of the plane were doing. The speed with which the flames engulfed the plane, combined with the heat and smoke gave them almost no chance of survival. So very sad.
 
BAeRJ100
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 1:31 am

sealevel wrote:
Someone please find the specs - as others indicated a smaller jet in the western world does not have the ability to dump, the 737 and A320 cannot, did the Russians incorporate it into the 100 ?


No. It's been mentioned numerous times, the SSJ does not have dump capabilities.

I always laugh at the audacity of people demanding that "someone please" find something for them. Too hard to do it yourself?
B737/738/739/744ER/752/753/763/77L/77W/788/789
A223/320/321/332/333/346/359/388
MD82/MD88/717/F100/RJ85/RJ100/146-100/200/300
E175/190/CRJ700/900
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 1:50 am

SierraPacific wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

I think that dependence on Automation is a huge problem that has caused most accidents in the past 15 years so saying that the automation only has pros and no cons is rather disingenuous. If this was a degradation to direct law and the pilots were not trained or experienced enough with the handling of the jet in that control mode, I foresee a big change in training regarding control laws.

I do believe we have hit the penultimate when it comes to automation in the flight deck and that further automation tools being introduced will cause more accidents than it prevents because of the amount of technical know how that is required and the sheer amount of information that bombards the pilots in an emergency.

If I had unlimited money, It would be very interesting to see how a less advanced airplane (Say a 727) is flown with modern CRM and the incident rate on it compared to a modern day aircraft flown under the CRM system. I have a hunch that counterintuitively the incident rate would be about the same since dare I say most of the crashes from the 60's-80's were CRM issues rather than issues that we see today and that the statistics are muddied from that error because of the lack of CRM.

(I am just an aviation buff and student pilot with a sociology background so if I am completely off base that is why)


I disagree about dependence on automation being the cause of "most" accidents. Runway overruns and runway incursions are a big focus in safety and are not directly related to automation.

A 727 with modern practices would be an interesting experiment, but the reliability of modern aircraft is massively higher than that of a 60s jet.


I should have clarified on that but I was referencing catastrophic crashes like AF447 or OZ214 that were either caused by or contributed to by automation dependency rather than runway overruns. I am glad to hear that I was not completely off base when it comes to my experiment setup and the role of modern cockpit dynamics vs the older captain always right mentality.


AF447 is an interesting one, and I don't think over-reliance of automation was a big contributing issue. A combination of fatigue (most likely), poor CRM and poor understanding of high altitude upsets (not entirely the fault of the pilots but more a training issue of the day) were contributing factors, along of course with the pitot malfunction.

In these situations, older cockpits had a much higher workload, and required much more memorisation of procedures. Certainly the third crewmember helped but even so. A system like ECAM/EICAS is a massive help in abnormal situations.

The key is "appropriate use" of automation. Sometimes you want all of it, sometimes a part, sometimes (rarely) none. In most emergencies maximum automation is a very good idea, as it decreases workload. But automation won't help you if you don't understand it. Mode awareness and understanding are fundamental to flying modern airliners.

Hand flying in Normal Law is perfectly doable. Apart from some military pilots, we all started on light pistons. It's not like hand flying is completely foreign to the well trained pilot.

To paraphrase the first section of the Airbus FCTM: "First and foremost: Fly the airplane. Fly the airplane. Fly the airplane."
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 1:52 am

thaiflyer wrote:
twinotter wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Thats about all we can really do I think.


No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.


Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.
I only travel with hand luggage for my work and as i have to many valuables in my hand carry, checking in is not a option.
I agree that locking the bins could be a option and technical it is not a problem.
But i'm afraid this will never happen as it cost to much and increases the weight of the plane.
People are not willing to pay for it.
Even i'm a seasoned traveler nobody knows how somebody would react in a emergency.
Even not the the so called die hards here on the forum
Until you have first hand experience you just don't know it.


IMHO the weight increase of a system to centrally lock the bins would be rather small. Replacing the handle latches with electronic ones probably makes no weight difference. Then it's just a question of signal wiring, which is neither bulky nor heavy.

The cost of certifying such a system, and retrofitting on existing jets, would of course not be that small. But much less than other modern safety features like fuel inerting.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Indy
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 1:59 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
At some point its probably a good Idea to have locking mechanisms for over head bins from out of blocks to 10,000 ft and vise-versa. Nobody should be up out of their seat at that point anyway, and in case of an emergency like this they remain locked for the evacuation. Include a crew only manual over ride (key of some sort) should one fail during normal operations.

I feel that would prevent people from opening the bins and grabbing their suitcases.

RIP to all who perished.


I was thinking that very same thing earlier. Or maybe once some kind of emergency system is activated (slide, oxygen masks, etc) that they automatically lock. But you'd probably get some fool standing in the aisle, blocking the evacuation, trying to bust the bin open so he could get his bag out. I firmly believe that some people are that selfish. And as a poster eluded to earlier... no... it has nothing to do with panic. The act of retrieving a bag or any other possession from the overhead bin is deliberate and not panic related.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
Indy
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:01 am

thaiflyer wrote:
Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.


Sorry but it isn't a few You see it in virtually every crash video where survivors are able to escape the plane. There are always a number of people with their carry on bags. They exist in numbers on every flight. They only get exposed during crashes. How many lives were lost in this crash because of these people?
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
TheOldDude
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:25 am

Although I hesitate to add to the locking bins sub-discussion I feel compelled to respond to the post below. Some of the points made crystallize the different risk decisions faced by airlines, airframe manufacturers, and regulators:

thaiflyer wrote:
twinotter wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Thats about all we can really do I think.


No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.


Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.


Banning all carry-on luggage is the only way to bring the risk from carry-on luggage to zero. Any other option presents a non-zero risk. By choosing another option, the increased risk is being implicitly accepted as a tradeoff for a benefit, such as keeping medicines, computers, or papers with the passengers.

thaiflyer wrote:
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.


There's a benefit to a no carry-on policy that must be recognized -- If an accident occurs, passengers that would otherwise die are allowed to live simply because no one blocks an aisle to retrieve their bag. I fail to see how that is a "punishment". (Or perhaps you mean millions are inconvenienced by not having their bags with them to save the lives of the few who may be involved in an accident? If so, you are making the risk trade-off I spoke of earlier).

thaiflyer wrote:
I agree that locking the bins could be a option and technical it is not a problem.


But some traveller, somewhere, in the heat of the moment, will stop in the aisle and try to force a bin open. That will delay deplaning and may contribute to a higher death toll. But like I said, it's a risk question. Evidently many are more than willing for someone else to assume the risk.

thaiflyer wrote:
Even i'm a seasoned traveler nobody knows how somebody would react in a emergency.


This supports the point I made above about "some traveller, somewhere, in the heat of the moment, will stop in the aisle and try to force a bin open".
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:29 am

My hypothesis is that a few people trying to force the bin open, then giving up, will waste less time than the same people opening their respective bins, dragging their bags out, and lugging them outside. But that's only a hypothesis.

Indy wrote:
thaiflyer wrote:
Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.


Sorry but it isn't a few You see it in virtually every crash video where survivors are able to escape the plane. There are always a number of people with their carry on bags. They exist in numbers on every flight. They only get exposed during crashes. How many lives were lost in this crash because of these people?


This may be the first crash in which it was so clearly apparent to the casual observer. The combination of horrific fire, many people surviving while others didn't, dramatic footage and reasonably clear indications that people died because they could not evacuate in time may sway public opinion. This in turn might make legislators put pressure on regulators.

Given the increasing ubiquity of cameras, it is more and more likely that crashes will be caught from multiple angles, further increasing the likelihood that idiots evacuating with bags will be caught on camera.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
thaiflyer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:55 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:32 am

That's the whole issue, or you have people who removes the luggage or when locked they will try to open the bins.
Personally i think that a strong punishment for people obstructing the evacuation would help.
Big fine with possible imprisonment could be helpful. (make a few examples for my part)
 
thaiflyer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:55 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:50 am

Starlionblue wrote:
My hypothesis is that a few people trying to force the bin open, then giving up, will waste less time than the same people opening their respective bins, dragging their bags out, and lugging them outside. But that's only a hypothesis.

Indy wrote:
thaiflyer wrote:
Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.


Sorry but it isn't a few You see it in virtually every crash video where survivors are able to escape the plane. There are always a number of people with their carry on bags. They exist in numbers on every flight. They only get exposed during crashes. How many lives were lost in this crash because of these people?


This may be the first crash in which it was so clearly apparent to the casual observer. The combination of horrific fire, many people surviving while others didn't, dramatic footage and reasonably clear indications that people died because they could not evacuate in time may sway public opinion. This in turn might make legislators put pressure on regulators.

Given the increasing ubiquity of cameras, it is more and more likely that crashes will be caught from multiple angles, further increasing the likelihood that idiots evacuating with bags will be caught on camera.


Until the cause of death is established we don't know at this stage if the luggage issue had a effect on the evacuation.
From video footage it could be a contributing factor but we don't for sure.
It is irresponsible to state that people died because if this.
I don't want to justify it in any way but we should stick with the facts which are known at this time.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 3966
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:51 am

Blimpie wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Blimpie wrote:

Really?? It was both posted up-thread on here and being reported by RT and CNN that review of the ATC recordings when asked about dumping fuel, the crew responded they did not feel comfortable at low altitude dumping fuel over the city.

It makes absolutely no sense that a regional jet would have to EVER dump fuel. If the gear can’t handle a MTOW Landing on a plane that size then the plane absolutely sucks.


And, yet, had the plane dumped its fuel, how many people would possibly have survived? Maybe some, perhaps all, or possibly none; however, without a full load of fuel, the fire that consumed the plane may have been dramatically less.

They wouldn’t dump till there was zero fuel on the plane. The plane effectively crashed into the runway. And the SSJ as all small jets cannot dump
 
OneX123
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 2:53 am

Apologies if this has been discussed upthread -- I couldn't find much mention of it.

It's my understanding that a lighting streak caused a loss of avionics and a subsequent over-speed, over weight bounced landing. Are there any reports or information of the crew having difficulties controlling the aircraft or fire/other urgent emergency on board? Could it have been better to try to fly the airplane out of the (I'm suspecting) poor weather and try to control it a bit before alternatives and a landing could be coordinated? I'm wondering what the urgent rush was to get it back down.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:03 am

32andBelow wrote:
Blimpie wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
It makes absolutely no sense that a regional jet would have to EVER dump fuel. If the gear can’t handle a MTOW Landing on a plane that size then the plane absolutely sucks.


And, yet, had the plane dumped its fuel, how many people would possibly have survived? Maybe some, perhaps all, or possibly none; however, without a full load of fuel, the fire that consumed the plane may have been dramatically less.

They wouldn’t dump till there was zero fuel on the plane. The plane effectively crashed into the runway. And the SSJ as all small jets cannot dump


Indeed. Even if you could, you'd only jettison until you reached a reasonable landing weight. Still plenty of fuel in the aircraft at landing. My feeling is that with this kind of landing, even if only the unusable fuel is in the tanks, it has the potential to vaporise and produce quite a fire.

Either way, for a time critical emergency, as this may well have been, you'd go for a landing ASAP even if that means an overweight landing. Taking extra time to jettison would be unwise.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:05 am

OneX123 wrote:
Apologies if this has been discussed upthread -- I couldn't find much mention of it.

It's my understanding that a lighting streak caused a loss of avionics and a subsequent over-speed, over weight bounced landing. Are there any reports or information of the crew having difficulties controlling the aircraft or fire/other urgent emergency on board? Could it have been better to try to fly the airplane out of the (I'm suspecting) poor weather and try to control it a bit before alternatives and a landing could be coordinated? I'm wondering what the urgent rush was to get it back down.


Since comms went out early on, no one really knows besides the pilots. Interviews with them, as well as the CVR and DFDR, should shed light.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:14 am

thaiflyer wrote:
twinotter wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Thats about all we can really do I think.


No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.


Sorry but that is a short sided reaction.
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.
I only travel with hand luggage for my work and as i have to many valuables in my hand carry, checking in is not a option.
I agree that locking the bins could be a option and technical it is not a problem.
But i'm afraid this will never happen as it cost to much and increases the weight of the plane.
People are not willing to pay for it.
Even i'm a seasoned traveler nobody knows how somebody would react in a emergency.
Even not the the so called die hards here on the forum
Until you have first hand experience you just don't know it.


Every time there is a plane crash there is a knee jerk reaction. Ban this. Regulate that. Ground this. Ect ect

The chance of a crash or accident is so small, even in countries with poor overall aviation safety records, it’s not worth the hassle or expense of locks. The cost of fuel to haul the additional weight doesn’t justify it. Flying is so damn safe it just isn't worth it.

Years ago there was a huge push for no more unrestrained infants and children...car seats for all. That sounds great until you realize families that could only afford to fly bc they could hold young children will now be forced to drive. Driving exposes them to exponentially more risk—even if their kids are in car seats in their cars—than flying did w kids in laps. End result. This would actually just kill more kids.

We have the technology to build crash proof planes that would virtually insure in a crash no one would die. The technology is there to do that. Regulate and ban all other planes except the super regulated, ultra safe “Em-Bo-Bus A7580” model. Flying would become so uneconomical the average person couldn’t fly...cars and ships I guess have to pick up the slack. Congrats you over regulators. You just killed hundreds of thousands of people. (World wide 508,000 people die in auto accidents EVERY year currently—look it up. Per Google).

So we are all worried about a couple of potential deaths when we have half a million people dying in cars. Yes, it’s sad people died in these crashes and my heart goes out to their families. But let’s just be real. Over half a million in car accidents and how many in aviation and you want to spend money on locking overhead bins?? SMH

The real way to save lives is to decrease regulations, make starting airlines less expensive, get back to the post deregulation days where there were more airlines and lower fares. More people would fly. Less drive. Lives would be saved at a greater rate that any locking bin or redesigning MCAS would ever save.
Last edited by MD80Ttail on Tue May 07, 2019 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:18 am

ikarlson wrote:
He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/


If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.

The fact that the evacuation was inhibited by those who reached for hand luggage - I think this is complete nonsense. You can even see from the video - if anyone had a carry-on luggage, it was small.


So can we please drop the luggage bins distraction now and get back to the facts of this accident? One of which is that the plane was indeed in an area of active lightning, as confirmed by this same gentleman who was on the flight. He is not sure that it was actually struck, though. So we still are somewhat in the dark as to the condition of the electronics as they might relate to what went wrong with this landing.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 AT72 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 742/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788
CR2/7/9 D8S D9S D95 DHC2/3/7/8 D328 E110/120/135/140/145/170/175/190
F100 J31 L1011 L410 M11/80/90 RJ85 S340 SSJ100 T134/154 Y42
 
AirCalSNA
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:23 am

I've looked around on the inter-webs but don't see much solid evidence that evacuation was slowed by passengers trying to get their luggage/bags. I see that some folks had bags on their shoulders as they were photographed walking away, but that seems like slim evidence of any material delay. Perhaps I've missed something others are seeing that prompts the lengthy discussion of the point here.
 
Indy
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:26 am

thaiflyer wrote:
Until the cause of death is established we don't know at this stage if the luggage issue had a effect on the evacuation.
From video footage it could be a contributing factor but we don't for sure.
It is irresponsible to state that people died because if this.
I don't want to justify it in any way but we should stick with the facts which are known at this time.


If you listen carefully to the video shot inside the plane, you can hear what sounds like bins being opened a couple of times. So there was some delay caused. In a crash like that were seconds count, the grabbing of bags likely caused deaths. How many will never be known but you cannot cause delays when seconds count and expect that is didn't contribute to deaths at all.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:26 am

dennypayne wrote:
ikarlson wrote:
He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/


If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.

The fact that the evacuation was inhibited by those who reached for hand luggage - I think this is complete nonsense. You can even see from the video - if anyone had a carry-on luggage, it was small.


So can we please drop the luggage bins distraction now and get back to the facts of this accident? One of which is that the plane was indeed in an area of active lightning, as confirmed by this same gentleman who was on the flight. He is not sure that it was actually struck, though. So we still are somewhat in the dark as to the condition of the electronics as they might relate to what went wrong with this landing.


What made the pilots feel they needed to land immediately? Seems like a logical question. It certainly looks obvious from the video they didn’t have the proper landing profile yet tried to force the plane on the ground verses going around. All I have read is the plane was in direct law, which I’m not even clear exactly this means on the SSJ. What was the impetus to force the landing? I also read a media report the pilots decided not to dump fuel prior to landing. We all know how reliable media reports are. Does the SSJ even have fuel dump capabilities. (Seems strange if it does but....) so if yes, why didn’t they do it?

Again to sum up, from the forced landing it appears they wanted to be on the ground no matter the costs but why? What was happening to make the pilots believe toga wasn’t an option when the landing was botched. Guessing we will find out the approach wasn’t stabilized.
 
Indy
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:28 am

dennypayne wrote:
If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.


He was clearly wrong as you could hear at least a couple of bins being opened in his video. Anyone that has traveled knows the sounds in an airplane. You know the sounds of seat belts being unbuckled and you know the sound a bin makes when it opens.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
thaiflyer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:55 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:46 am

Indy wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.


He was clearly wrong as you could hear at least a couple of bins being opened in his video. Anyone that has traveled knows the sounds in an airplane. You know the sounds of seat belts being unbuckled and you know the sound a bin makes when it opens.


Better wait for the investigation results before we make conclusions.
I think that the Captain of the flight has more knowledge of this then you or me.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:48 am

Indy wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.


He was clearly wrong as you could hear at least a couple of bins being opened in his video. Anyone that has traveled knows the sounds in an airplane. You know the sounds of seat belts being unbuckled and you know the sound a bin makes when it opens.


Yes, the average person isn’t that smart. People are in shock. People don’t think. People do dumb things. In retrospect a lot of the passengers will look back and say gee that was really stupid of me. Hindsight. Maybe it caused more deaths. The solution is not to crash the plane. Problem solved.

Crashes are so rare, even on airlines and in countries with the worst safety records, it’s statistically insignificant the number of lives that would be saved by massive new regulations. Additional regulations and costs would deter some from flying bc they can’t afford it, thus forcing them out onto dangerous roads, thus signing their death sentence bc driving is exponentially less safe than flying. So saving 2 or 3 or 15 in a super rare plane crash might end up costing literally thousands of lives. Over half a million people die per year worldwide in car accidents. How many by carry on luggage in planes?

If someone really feels it’s a problem a simple solution is to amend the FA briefing to state in an emergency exit without taking any carry on luggage, stickers on the bins themselves and maybe the seat backs and anytime there is an emergency landing an additional FA brief to remind everyone to not open overhead bins and to not take any carry on items when evac’ing the plane.

People will still do it but I just don’t see this a some huge problem that needs money and regulations thrown at it.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 3:52 am

Btw what’s to say you have locking overheads as proposed you wouldn’t have idiots just standing there trying to pry them open, trying the latches and not moving thus still blocking the isle and escape paths. That would be even slower. The same person that’s opening the overhead bins would be dumb enough to stand there fiddling with the locked bin trying to open it. I don’t see anything being gained by locking bins but I do see a huge potential for even more loss of life.
Last edited by MD80Ttail on Tue May 07, 2019 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
travelsonic
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:59 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 4:13 am

B737Captain1980 wrote:

If I saw a pax getting his/her luggage during an evac, I would push them down to the ground and step right on top of them on my way out for putting my life at risk for a replaceable belonging.


And if they went down in a way that caused more people to topple over, or the bag to fall, and become stuck (/ otherwise impede evacuation? Congrats, you'd be the one partially responsible for getting others hurt and possibly killed.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3066
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 4:26 am

Indy wrote:
How many lives were lost in this crash because of these people?

You tell me - how many lives were lost in this crash because of people getting their bags?
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
c933103
Posts: 3765
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 4:36 am

juliuswong wrote:
Following the Aeroflot SSJ crash, Yamal Airlines cancels an order for 10 SSJ, citing high cost of operation.

Currently they operate 15. They mentioned the cancellation is not related to the crash.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/05/ ... rts-a65501

What is the servicing cost that it is referring to? Maintenance cost or what? That doesn't seems to be a good outlook even for the future SSJ75
And it's probably better to make another thread instead given that it is unrelated to the crash
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Posts: 2944
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 4:46 am

Is this incident the "straw" that breaks the back of the Sukhoi SSJ program? The cancelation of pending orders by Russian regional carriers and the well known fiasco with Interjet over dispatch reliability and replacement parts availability, plus this negative press.... can Sukhoi carry on with the SSJ? My condolences to the loved ones of the victims and prayers are with the injured from the Moscow crash. The videos are truly horrific.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
twinotter
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:13 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 4:56 am

MD80Ttail wrote:

We have the technology to build crash proof planes that would virtually insure in a crash no one would die. .


There exists no technology that overrides physics. No airplane can be "crash proofed" (your term).
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:07 am

Starlionblue wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
PW100 wrote:

Without that automation, we would see *a lot* more accidents.

The problem is that looking only at the automation-related accidents, we don't see or appreciate the number of accidents that the same automation prevented.
Removing the automation, and relying on humans solely, would be really killing us . . .


I think that dependence on Automation is a huge problem that has caused most accidents in the past 15 years so saying that the automation only has pros and no cons is rather disingenuous. If this was a degradation to direct law and the pilots were not trained or experienced enough with the handling of the jet in that control mode, I foresee a big change in training regarding control laws.

I do believe we have hit the penultimate when it comes to automation in the flight deck and that further automation tools being introduced will cause more accidents than it prevents because of the amount of technical know how that is required and the sheer amount of information that bombards the pilots in an emergency.

If I had unlimited money, It would be very interesting to see how a less advanced airplane (Say a 727) is flown with modern CRM and the incident rate on it compared to a modern day aircraft flown under the CRM system. I have a hunch that counterintuitively the incident rate would be about the same since dare I say most of the crashes from the 60's-80's were CRM issues rather than issues that we see today and that the statistics are muddied from that error because of the lack of CRM.

(I am just an aviation buff and student pilot with a sociology background so if I am completely off base that is why)


I disagree about dependence on automation being the cause of "most" accidents. Runway overruns and runway incursions are a big focus in safety and are not directly related to automation.

A 727 with modern practices would be an interesting experiment, but the reliability of modern aircraft is massively higher than that of a 60s jet.


How about looking at DC9 and DC10 loss rates. Same 60s design flown in scheduled service until very recently. Seems like they did just fine as compared to more modern aircraft. I’m sure someone can get us a statistic.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:15 am

twinotter wrote:
MD80Ttail wrote:

We have the technology to build crash proof planes that would virtually insure in a crash no one would die. .


There exists no technology that overrides physics. No airplane can be "crash proofed" (your term).


Sure there is. How can there not be? I said virtually btw. Im sure there is a way to make a plane that in the event of a crash occupants would most likely live. The point I’m making is planes could be “crash proofed” as to be so much safer than today in the event of a crash it would be very unlikely for someone to get killed. The car equivalent maybe would be a NASCAR car compared to a regular car. They crash all the time at high speeds and rarely do the drivers die.

The money it would take would be enormous but I’m sure a design could be made that would make deaths in the event of a crash almost unheard of.

The bottom line is the cost of such a plane would be so enormous to make in unfeasible.

You missed the whole point of my post. I hope others will understand the point I was making. It has nothing to do with physics and is an abstract concept I was trying to illustrate a point.
Last edited by MD80Ttail on Tue May 07, 2019 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1958
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:16 am

twinotter wrote:
MD80Ttail wrote:

We have the technology to build crash proof planes that would virtually insure in a crash no one would die. .


There exists no technology that overrides physics. No airplane can be "crash proofed" (your term).


It's either a plane that can't fly ( and bolted to the ground so it can't roll into anything either) or a cartoon airplane (where the laws of physics don't apply)
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:19 am

Jouhou wrote:
twinotter wrote:
MD80Ttail wrote:

We have the technology to build crash proof planes that would virtually insure in a crash no one would die. .


There exists no technology that overrides physics. No airplane can be "crash proofed" (your term).


It's either a plane that can't fly ( and bolted to the ground so it can't roll into anything either) or a cartoon airplane (where the laws of physics don't apply)


Exactly my point!!! It has nothing to do w physics. Read above. It’s a thought exercise to illustrate a point. See the forrest through the trees.
 
eielef
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:32 am

dennypayne wrote:
ikarlson wrote:
He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/


If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.

So can we please drop the luggage bins distraction now and get back to the facts of this accident? One of which is that the plane was indeed in an area of active lightning, as confirmed by this same gentleman who was on the flight. He is not sure that it was actually struck, though. So we still are somewhat in the dark as to the condition of the electronics as they might relate to what went wrong with this landing.


The crew said it did happen. And most of us happen to trust more to the crew, who knows exactly how to do an evacuation, what to take, what not to take, etc.
Tatyana Kasatkina, 34, told the Sun on Monday that she kicked open the door to the Aeroflot jet and physically pushed lingering passengers — who were delayed as others grabbed their bags from the overhead compartments — out onto the emergency slide.
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... b37343f1d8

The passenger on the interview you quote, Dmitry Kharinin, says people were taking small things. Sure, hand luggage must consist of small items. But the process of taking them from the overhead bins can potentially delay everything. Specially after a crash landing, or at least a very bad landing, where items can been displaced. Add that, in some scenarios, you are trying to evacuate in darkness or with smoke, people threw something out from the overhead bins, and it could be very risky for the others trying to evacuate.

That's the reason crew doesn't allow you to have any carry on luggage with you during take off and landing. Because that's considered statistically the riskiest time to have them. This should include emergencies, but some don't agree on this... If people doesn't follow this rule voluntarily, then a harsher system should be put in place, similar to the smoke detectors in lavatories.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:37 am

eielef wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
ikarlson wrote:
He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/


If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.

So can we please drop the luggage bins distraction now and get back to the facts of this accident? One of which is that the plane was indeed in an area of active lightning, as confirmed by this same gentleman who was on the flight. He is not sure that it was actually struck, though. So we still are somewhat in the dark as to the condition of the electronics as they might relate to what went wrong with this landing.


The crew said it did happen. And most of us happen to trust more to the crew, who knows exactly how to do an evacuation, what to take, what not to take, etc.
Tatyana Kasatkina, 34, told the Sun on Monday that she kicked open the door to the Aeroflot jet and physically pushed lingering passengers — who were delayed as others grabbed their bags from the overhead compartments — out onto the emergency slide.
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... b37343f1d8

The passenger on the interview you quote, Dmitry Kharinin, says people were taking small things. Sure, hand luggage must consist of small items. But the process of taking them from the overhead bins can potentially delay everything. Specially after a crash landing, or at least a very bad landing, where items can been displaced. Add that, in some scenarios, you are trying to evacuate in darkness or with smoke, people threw something out from the overhead bins, and it could be very risky for the others trying to evacuate.

That's the reason crew doesn't allow you to have any carry on luggage with you during take off and landing. Because that's considered statistically the riskiest time to have them. This should include emergencies, but some don't agree on this... If people doesn't follow this rule voluntarily, then a harsher system should be put in place, similar to the smoke detectors in lavatories.


Crashes are so rare why bother? How many people per year will harsher save? Over a half million people die worldwide in car crashes per year. Is it worth all of the effort and cost for no statistical return? We are over regulating the industry. Potentially the “solutions” will cost so much to implement costs to fly could go up so more people drive bc the can’t afford to fly and in actuality the solution to a minor problem end up killing more people due to them driving instead of flying. Driving is much riskier. 508,000 people per year die driving.
 
Iluvtofly
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:22 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:45 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
Indy wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
If you folks would read this interview, an actual survivor states that the luggage issue did not happen.


He was clearly wrong as you could hear at least a couple of bins being opened in his video. Anyone that has traveled knows the sounds in an airplane. You know the sounds of seat belts being unbuckled and you know the sound a bin makes when it opens.


Yes, the average person isn’t that smart. People are in shock. People don’t think. People do dumb things. In retrospect a lot of the passengers will look back and say gee that was really stupid of me. Hindsight. Maybe it caused more deaths. The solution is not to crash the plane. Problem solved.

Crashes are so rare, even on airlines and in countries with the worst safety records, it’s statistically insignificant the number of lives that would be saved by massive new regulations. Additional regulations and costs would deter some from flying bc they can’t afford it, thus forcing them out onto dangerous roads, thus signing their death sentence bc driving is exponentially less safe than flying. So saving 2 or 3 or 15 in a super rare plane crash might end up costing literally thousands of lives. Over half a million people die per year worldwide in car accidents. How many by carry on luggage in planes?

If someone really feels it’s a problem a simple solution is to amend the FA briefing to state in an emergency exit without taking any carry on luggage, stickers on the bins themselves and maybe the seat backs and anytime there is an emergency landing an additional FA brief to remind everyone to not open overhead bins and to not take any carry on items when evac’ing the plane.

People will still do it but I just don’t see this a some huge problem that needs money and regulations thrown at it.


Clearly you dont fly very often .... you honestly believe that F/A announcements dont include that information already ? You are obviously one of the people who dont pay attention .....
Flown - B707 727 737 747 757 767 777 787 A300 310 319 320 321 330 340 Concorde BAC111 TU154 VC10 F27 F28 F100 DC3 DC8 DC9 DC10 L1011 L188 DHC6 DHC7 DHC8 E135 E145 HS748 MD11 ST27 CV580 S340 ATR42 J31
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8484
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 5:48 am

People do not act rationally in extreme situations.

Working with volunteer firefighters, I have seen people straightening the curtains on the window when being pulled from a burning flat, people locking the doors of totalled cars, People fall back to muscle memory in such situations and for most passengers "plane lands, stand up, get carry-on, leave plane" is muscle memory.
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:12 am

Aesma wrote:
Either the pilot's quote we got is fake, or he's in shock and saying nonsense, or he's in denial and saying nonsense.

There is no way they could not know up front that the landing was not normal at all !


In the case of 737MAX i defended the pilots, because the situation they were in was new, plane was working against them, and they were never properly trained for MCAS malfunction.

However in this case ... I am getting really suspicious. Lightning or not, there was widespread electrical failure, which disabled avionics, possibly all sensors and instruments. I can understand that. But the plane was still flyable (as the actions of the plane after the failure show), and they managed to get to the runway and actually land (neither of Ethiopian and LionAir crews were even close to that). So I would expect that the pilot would have very clear understanding of what controls did not work (e.g. flaps, air brakes, throttle control, reverse thrust, etc...) or which sensors were unavailable (e.g. airspeed, radio altimeter, etc). In that case I would understand why the landing went so disastrous.

But he claims that he actually doesn't know what went wrong?? That's mightily suspicious. Did they miss that the plane went into direct law due to widespread sensor failure and relied on the protections that were no longer available for smooth landing? That would be one massive pilot error. Did perhaps they not train for flying under a direct law?? (AFAIK for Airbus planes, this is trained in the simulator as well, what about SuperJet?).
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:15 am

Blimpie wrote:
Really?? It was both posted up-thread on here and being reported by RT and CNN that review of the ATC recordings when asked about dumping fuel, the crew responded they did not feel comfortable at low altitude dumping fuel over the city.


What ATC recording? AFAIK radio was inoperable for the whole time after electrical failure, their only means of communication were squawk codes 7600 (radio failure) and 7700 (emergency). I hear for the first time they had radio contact?
 
LAXBUR
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:05 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:16 am

Amazing the discussion is mostly about bags. If people did in fact die because people were grabbing bags that’s terrible and tragic. But just as easily someone with a bum knee could have held up the evacuation. Or an elderly person. Or a family trying to grab their children. Should we ban them? Only allow able bodied adults fly? No, I’m not stating bags are equal to humans but rather there are a ton of factors that could delay or hinder an evacuation. Luckily, planes rarely crash land. There are plenty of other things that kill people that some countries have no interest in further regulating.
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:22 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
I am sure people would probably bang and try to open them, but once they realize its a lost cause they may just move on.


There is another thread on this topic, but you are all inventing complex solutions for a very simple problem: don't allow people to bring full-sized luggage in the cabin, period. 5 kg (overhead)+2kg (under the seat) limit, and presto, size of the problem gets much smaller. Plus advise pax that they put the important stuff (documents, medicines) into 2 kg bag and that they may take it from under the seat during evacuation (it basically won't slow anyone, the people stopping in the middle and opening the bins are the issue).
 
eielef
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:25 am

I don't get it also how did the plane land without radio communications?
Say your radios and all other communication devices die while you are midflight. Say the plane is perfectly flyable, all controls work, even autopilot, you just don't have radio, or mobile phones, or nothing.
You just land whenever and wherever you feel like? I doubt you can.
So I believe ATC had cleared all the airspace around SVO and allowed the crew to land at their discretion. This sound possible, but then, how long is this clearing valid? How long can all of the Moscow air space can be closed till an aircraft on a radio malfunction/emergency (therefor 7600/7700) lands?

What if the pilot decided to land and crashed a plane that was crossing the runway, or waiting for take off clearance? It has happened many times.

What is the protocol for this, very unlikely situation?
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:29 am

aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm


They should be trained to fly in direct law as well. For me, mightily suspicious part is when pilot claims he was not aware anything was wrong with the landing. Either total disorientation, incredibly poor handling of the plane, or total denial.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:33 am

Evacuation certification is based on the assumption people behaving as instructed by cabin crew. However, every single video of evacuations over the last many years, have footage of passengers carrying their belongings with them, belongings they were instructed by crew to leave behind. Now, if this had happened only once or twice, the authorities might argue those were one-off's and the assumption still stands. Since that is obviously not the case, an argument could easily be made that a large number of passengers will not obey crew instructions, but rather delay evacuation by retrieving some or all of their carry-on items.

As such, it would seem prudent to reevaluate current assumptions, and realign them with observed reality. The requirement of evacuating the cabin in 90 seconds or less must stand, the challenge is how to achieve it when a large percentage of the passengers retrieve belongings before exiting. It would be extremely interesting to see a series of evacuation tests based on real-life experiences (e.g. 50% of occupants will retrieve items from overhead storage), and see what that does to evacuation times. If it proves impossible to achieve within 90 seconds, the authorities have a job on their hands introducing regulations to address that issue. And that might very well result in the removal of overhead bins and bans on anything larger than what you can carry on your person.

I too am in the situation of having to endure frequent travel, and as a general rule will only travel with carry-on. If we can no longer bring our laptop onboard, I'm very confident a clever soul will come up with a solution and make a buck or two in the process. Could be a case of introducing some sort of tamper proof casing, in which you place your valuables at check-in. "Oh no, then I can't check in on-line anymore and go direct to gate!". Well, no, and sorry that raising the chances of you and your fellow passengers surviving a crash and subsequent evacuation, has had such a devastating effect on your life (sarcasm off).

I'm of the absolute conviction, that my convenience should never eclipse the safety of my fellow passengers. If I can't bring my lap-top onboard, I'll have to improvise, adapt and overcome.
Signature. You just read one.
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:34 am

eielef wrote:
I don't get it also how did the plane land without radio communications?
Say your radios and all other communication devices die while you are midflight. Say the plane is perfectly flyable, all controls work, even autopilot, you just don't have radio, or mobile phones, or nothing.
You just land whenever and wherever you feel like? I doubt you can.


That's the point of squawking 7700. Your plane becomes impossible-to-miss alert (red target, sound alert as well) on all radar screens that observe the area in question. The ATC will try to contact you to see what is going on. I assume that after squawking 7600 (radio failure) followed by 7700 they should assume the worst as they have no means of contacting you and are not aware of your actual situation, it could well be Mayday call if radio was working. So in 7700 they will ask you what exactly is going on, but in 7600 followed by 7700 they have no other option than to clear the airspace for you.
 
eielef
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:35 am

xmp125a wrote:
aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm


They should be trained to fly in direct law as well. For me, mightily suspicious part is when pilot claims he was not aware anything was wrong with the landing. Either total disorientation, incredibly poor handling of the plane, or total denial.


I'd add he is in total shock, and he shouldn't be allowed to give interviews, less to the press, 24 hours after such a catastrophe.
I think this should have been done differently... He should have first given a statement to MAK (the aviation authority in Russia), in a separate room than the copilot, only after he gets the all clear by doctors and psychiatrists. And those statements shouldn't have been given to the press, at least not at such early stages...
 
eielef
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:37 am

I checked on LIVEATC that has a well coverage of the skies, but there is no coverage of SVO. Is there any other website, Russian or not, that has the recordings of the ATC that day? There should be somewhere, but I haven't found them anywhere yet...
Maybe they are hidden from the public... But SVO is not a military airport, so i'm not sure the reasons for hiding them...
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:38 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
How about looking at DC9 and DC10 loss rates. Same 60s design flown in scheduled service until very recently. Seems like they did just fine as compared to more modern aircraft. I’m sure someone can get us a statistic.

I can: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Older jets, like the DC9 and 737 Jurassic, are a magnitude worse in terms of crashes per million flights.
DC-9: 0.58
737-100/200: 0.62
F-28: 1.62

A32X: 0.08
737NG: 0.06
F-70/100: 0.17

You could argue that the method is biased against older jets, due to crashes becoming more common at the end of their lifespan, but note the difference between the DC10 and MD11. Both are virtually retired by now and yet the often critizised MD11 is twice as safe as the DC10. Same ratio applies to MD-80 vs DC-9; and the 717 has been entirely crash free.
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:42 am

B777LRF wrote:
I too am in the situation of having to endure frequent travel, and as a general rule will only travel with carry-on. If we can no longer bring our laptop onboard, I'm very confident a clever soul will come up with a solution and make a buck or two in the process. Could be a case of introducing some sort of tamper proof casing, in which you place your valuables at check-in.


Or smaller-thinner laptop that you can carry on your person or in a 2 kg bag, with current tech this should not be a problem. Not your 3 kg "mobile workstation" though (I have one of these :) But indeed in the past 20 years I witnessed that the behaviour of the flying public deteriorated significantly. The airplane safety sheets still specify no electronic devices on takeoff and landing, and having them in flight mode for the rest of the flight, yet you can see tens of people listening music via their bluetooth (!!) headphones during takeoff, landing or the flight, totally unaware that bluetooth is actually radio transmitting device that in theory is banned during whole flight, not to mention actually using mobile phones during landing (I've seen this as well).

So yes, bring the regulations in line with the reality (allowing things that are not problem) or really crack down on pax who does not obey the rules and kick them off subsequent flights.
 
xmp125a
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 07, 2019 6:56 am

mtzguerrero wrote:
I have the impression that usual FBW pilots can get used to make strong flight control inputs with the confidence that the plane's computers will "correct" them in predictable ways, so it's reasonable to finish thinking that these are not corrections but just desirable outputs from what becomes being your everyday flying style.


I am not a pilot, but AFAIK Airbus pilots are trained to fly in all (three) laws and should be able to control plane in all cases. What you are describing would be indeed very dangerous.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos